Can a city communicate? Bradford as a corporate brand

Abstract

This exploratory research examines how corporate communications can influence stakeholder perceptions to enhance or detract from the city as a brand. It uses the UK city of Bradford as a case study and adopts theoretical concepts of product and corporate branding. Balmer's AC2ID test of corporate identity is applied to identify gaps in the City's official communications strategy, revealing conflicting messages between local government policy and different stakeholder groups. This analysis points to the need for positive visual evidence of change, such as an improved built environment in the city centre. The analysis may have value for policy‐makers in the UK and elsewhere who seek to improve community and stakeholder relationships. This research may also help to promote an honest approach towards branding cities as well as providing the potential for an enhanced brand value.

Towards a model of the Place Brand Web

“…As a point of departure for conceptualising place brand architectures, prior studies have taken brand architectures in corporate branding and compared corporate branding and city brands (Kavaratzis, 2004;Olins, 2003;Trueman, Klemm & Giroud, 2004) and examined similarities to corporate umbrella branding (Gnoth, 2002;Iversen & Hem, 2008;Papadopoulos & Heslop, 2007;Therkelsen & Halkier, 2008). However, scholars have begun to identify specific challenges associated with the development of such a strategic approach.…”

“…Case research was chosen for this part of the study because it supports a more in-depth analysis of a situation and allows for the choice of interesting cases (Yin, 2009). Further, there is a strong tradition of case study research in place branding (Olins, 2003;Trueman, Klemm & Giroud,. 2004).…”

“…This situation becomes all the more complex when the brands associated with a given place are also taken into consideration, including corporate brands associated with the place, and the brands of 'sub-places'. Whilst previous case study research offers some interesting models of umbrella branding at the country level (Gnoth, 2002;Iversen & Hem, 2008;Kavaratis, 2004;Trueman, Klemm & Giroud, 2004), with some theoretical discussion of place brand architectures and brand webs (Anholt, 2004;Hankinson, 2005;Hanna & Rowley, 2013), considerable benefits may be derived from a better understanding of the approaches adopted and the challenges experienced by place brand managers. However, it is possible that the current 'stakeholder' driven stance on seeking collaboration and buy-in to place brands is flawed, and that a theoretical model that views the owners of other brands associated with a place as partners between whom co-branding relationships can be developed, might be more fruitful.…”

What's in a Name? Place Branding and Toponymic Commodification

“…In recent years places have become regarded as 'brands', which can be marketed to a greater or lesser degree (Balakrishnan, 2009;Dinnie, 2008;Hankinson, 2004;Iverson and Hem, 2008;Kavaratzis, 2004;2005;Kotler and Gertner, 2002;Morgan et al, 2004;Trueman et al, 2004). Branding effort is often undertaken to improve a place's image in the eyes of external stakeholders (tourists, inward investors), and boost its economic vitality and viability.…”

Stakeholder engagement in the city branding process

“…Challenges are not only knowing who the stakeholders are that are involved in the brand creation, but also being able to communicate effectively to different audiences (ibid), which was highlighted in a study that investigated the city of Bradford, UK. Findings indicate that different stakeholders prioritised different aspects of the place, which led to the development of conflicting objectives (Trueman et al 2004).…”